Photoreal textures...

[Tweek]

We all know how lovely photoreal textures can look, whether they're applied to your aircraft or scenery.

However, far too many times I see people saying how brilliant shots are, just because photoreal textures have been used in the shot. A lot of the time, it'll be a frankly bog-standard shot, but the photo stuck on the terrain or on the aircraft magically transforms the screenshot into a work of art.

Fine, I do believe that screenshots can be enhanced through the use of photoreal addons, but if it's simply a straight shot of a tail, or a winglet, then it really isn't anything to get excited about. No real effort in taking the screenshot, yet you'll still get people praising the screenshot taker for the beautiful images they've just captured. Surely, if anyone should get the credit, it should be those who made the textures?

It does make you wonder, at times. What aspects of these shots are "STUNNING"? The setup, the thought put into it, or simply the environment in which it's taken?

I'd love to post examples, but of course, I don't want to upset anyone by singling them out.

It may seem a little sour, but I felt it was a matter that had to be addressed in some way or another. I'd like to hear others thoughts on it, too.

[Mictheslik]

Agreed.....just because someones scenery is nice doesnt mean that they take good screenshots. And that is what this studio is for....looking beyond the plane and scenery and seeing how people put effort into their shots

.Mic

[flymo]

i agree aswell, but people just say nice shots to everyone to be "nice" and so we get endourced with even more crap "bog-standard" shots

thats why i like the Studio because you can be critical, because if you want your shot picked to pieces and then improvements given by people who know what their talking about the Studio is the place to be

[Tweek]

i agree aswell, but people just say nice shots to everyone to be "nice"

Well it's fine to say "nice shots" to any set of screenshots, because after all, it's never nice to have your threads seemingly ignored! But some people do tend to go a little over the top in what they say. If you ask me, no screenshot I have ever seen has warranted ":o "!

[Mictheslik]

i agree aswell, but people just say nice shots to everyone to be "nice"

Well it's fine to say "nice shots" to any set of screenshots, because after all, it's never nice to have your threads seemingly ignored! But some people do tend to go a little over the top in what they say. If you ask me, no screenshot I have ever seen has warranted ":o "!

LOL!!!!

actually there have been a few worth  :o ....but none worth

.Mic

[Jakemaster]

I think that a photoreal tail or something can help complete a shot.  Yes it is annoying when its a picture of a tail on a blue backdrop and people go WOW, but lets say its a sunset pic or something where a tail that isn't photoreal might ruin it.

[cspyro21]

I think that a photoreal tail or something can help complete a shot.  Yes it is annoying when its a picture of a tail on a blue backdrop and people go WOW, but lets say its a sunset pic or something where a tail that isn't photoreal might ruin it.

+1...remember Vavavoom's 'Historic Jetliners' comp pic (see hall of fame for it)? I'm assuming it's a photoreal paint, and that shot is certainly a great one  8-)

[Tweek]

I think that a photoreal tail or something can help complete a shot.  Yes it is annoying when its a picture of a tail on a blue backdrop and people go WOW, but lets say its a sunset pic or something where a tail that isn't photoreal might ruin it.

You've proved my point then. It would otherwise be a bad shot, and so why is it all of a sudden transformed when photoreal is introduced? It's just the graphics over substance, really. (Yes, I think my graphics are fine! )

[F3Hadlow]

[quote][quote]I think that a photoreal tail or something can help complete a shot.

[Sytse]

Difficult subject here, gents!  

I think there are more aspects to taking a good screnshot than one might think. And I certainly think that a good combination of all those factors will give you a beautiful shot. I mean, if you have a shot and the composition and colours are excellent, but the grapics suck, it is not a good shot. And if you have a shot with really beautiful graphics, but lacks the other things, you don't have a good shot either.

I think we should look at the importance of the different aspects. For me, it's somewhat in this order:

Originality
Composition
Colours (mood / feel)
Graphics
Time put into the shot

I'm sure I can think of a lot more factors that contribute to a shot, but these I have now. A shot, any shot, can't be good if it lacks one of these things. I also think that, sometimes, the graphics add a ot more to the shot than just a good look. I pay great respect to someone who spends a lot of time searching for better textures and tweeking the sim. I agree on the fact that the makers of these add-ons should get part of the credit though.

Graphics are also important in another way. For example: if you are ready to take your shot in FS and you have paused the game. Let's say you take two shots. One with everything maxed out and one with every slider set to 'low' or '0'. I think that everybody will prefer the 'maxed' shot.

Just my 2 cents...

[MOUSY]

Very interesting way to look at it Sytse... especially that last scenario... interesting debate.

[krigl]

It depends what the shot is for and why it was taken.

Don't forget not every one only posts finely crafted and posed shots to impress. I only post stuff I think is quite good and worthy of the forum, but not every one has to be a masterpiece. Often each shot is just part of a set recording a flight, and then there's nothing wrong with a photoreal tail against a blue sky, if it looks nice. I like shots like that because they make me feel like a passenger or mechanic on the apron, looking up at the mammoth plane I'm about to board or service.

If it's part of a contest shot, like Vavavoom's (which I voted for), such a simple shot wouldn't be good - but Vavavoom's had a lot more going on in it than just tail plus sky.... other planes, great lighting and composition, originality, etc.

FS doesn't come with much, if any photoreal stuff. Finding the photoreal stuff counts as effort put in, and taking it from the right height or angle so it looks truly realistic takes a degree of skill. So IMHO there's nothing 'below standard' about shots featuring photoreal add-ons.

Prejudice against photoreal stuff is similar as that against payware environment packages, scenery or planes - some people seem to think it's payware so it's 'easy' or 'cheating' in some way. Yet they go mad over FSX with its reflective water which comes with the package, and for which you need to spend a ton of money to get a comp that can run the sim fluidly, far more than a few payware purchases cost that improve FS9 no end, like Flight and Ground Environment. Maybe I'm wrong about this 'anti-payware prejudice', but there must be some reason why people hardly go in there....

Just my two cents...

Krigl

[Tweek]

I sort of agree with you, Krigl, although a few people have missed my basic point:

It annoys me when people are getting lots of praise for simply pressing print screen when theres a bit of photoreal in the shot. If it's been used creatively, I think it's fine.

I said I wouldn't use an example, but I feel I may have to to get my point across.

From waspiflab's PAN AM thread:

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/drgbnerg.jpg

Now I don't mind this kind of shot, whatsoever, as it's actually quite informative, showing off the repaint in question. However, when it's generating comments such as these, it starts to get to me:

"Great shots! The first one is absolutley awesome."
"#1 is  :o "
"I agree. Number 1 is something else."
"First one is a killer"

If I'm going to be honest, technically, this shot isn't particularly good, although as I said, it does show off the paint. Does it make it absolutely awesome, though?

This shot, from the same thread, I feel is far better, as it combines more elements to make it a good shot:

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/erngerngr.jpg

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, so they may well think the example I used would be 'something else', even without the photoreal textures!


Ironically, one of my favourite shots ever, actually uses photoreal scenery. However, it's used creatively, and isn't the sole focus of the image.

Nice one, Krigl.
http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/mrsimvlarge.jpg

[krigl]

Ironically, one of my favourite shots ever, actually uses photoreal scenery. However, it's used creatively, and isn't the sole focus of the image.

Nice one, Krigl.
http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/mrsimvlarge.jpg

Thank you very much, Tweek!!!! I'm honoured! It is one of my all time favourites too...

I often have the feeling that people don't like my stuff, because it's too unrealistic or something. Like the VOZtour set I'm linking to in my sig, which I really liked but no one commented on, or in fact even looked at. It's great to hear that somebody appreciates my
favourite style of shot - lots of action, clouds and colour.... reality be damned

[Alonso]

Hi..

I've posted threads with shots containing photo-realistic A/C and showing only the textures... and IMO, I don't see anything wrong with it as long as the other shots are more original of course... I'm not gonna show 5 shots of these close-ups...

Here there is a thread I started and you can see the other 4 ALSO contain the photo-realistic textures but combined with weather/scenery/ground/water:

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 1167971157

And I've understood that what you (Tweek) don't like are the comments saying

"WOW look at that 1st shot is amazing! "

Then this thread should be for those who reply cheering only the shot with the photoreal close-up and nothing else right?

My 2 cents  ;)